Robot access control and governance for robotic process automation

ABSTRACT

Robot access control and governance for robotic process automation (RPA) is disclosed. A code analyzer of an RPA designer application, such as a workflow analyzer, may read access control and governance policy rules for an RPA designer application and analyze activities of an RPA workflow of the RPA designer application against the access control and governance policy rules. When one or more analyzed activities of the RPA workflow violate the access control and governance policy rules, the code analyzer prevents generation of an RPA robot or publication of the RPA workflow until the RPA workflow satisfies the access control and governance policy rules. When the analyzed activities of the RPA workflow comply with all required access control and governance policy rules, the RPA designer application may generate an RPA robot implementing the RPA workflow or publish the RPA workflow.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application is a continuation of, and claims priority to, U.S.patent application Ser. No. 16/924,499 filed on Jul. 9, 2020. Thesubject matter of this earlier filed application is incorporated byreference in its entirety.

FIELD

The present invention generally relates to robotic process automation(RPA), and more specifically, to robot access control and governance forRPA.

BACKGROUND

Certain actions taken by users of computing systems may violate laws oragreements in the U.S. and other countries, such as the E.U. GeneralData Protection Regulation (GDPR), the U.S. Health Insurance Portabilityand Accountability Act (HIPAA), third party terms of service, etc.Penalties for violation of these laws or agreements can be massive. Forinstance, with the GDPR, lower-level violations can merit a fine of €10million or two percent of the violator's worldwide annual revenue (notprofits), whichever is higher. A more serious violation can result in afine of €20 million, or four percent of the violator's annual revenue,whichever is higher. These fines can be financially damaging to acompany or even fatal. RPA presents a unique challenge to access controland governance. Accordingly, improved approaches to RPA access controland governance may be beneficial.

SUMMARY

Certain embodiments of the present invention may provide solutions tothe problems and needs in the art that have not yet been fullyidentified, appreciated, or solved by current RPA technologies. Forexample, some embodiments of the present invention pertain to robotaccess control and governance for RPA.

In an embodiment, a computer program for performing robot access controland governance for RPA is embodied on a non-transitory computer-readablemedium. The computer program configured to cause at least one processorto read access control and governance policy rules for an RPA designerapplication and analyze activities of an RPA workflow of the RPAdesigner application against the access control and governance policyrules. When one or more analyzed activities of the RPA workflow violatethe access control and governance policy rules, the computer program isconfigured to cause the at least one processor to prevent generation ofan RPA robot or publication of the RPA workflow until the RPA workflowsatisfies the access control and governance policy rules. When theanalyzed activities of the RPA workflow comply with all required accesscontrol and governance policy rules, the computer program is configuredto cause the at least one processor to generate an RPA robotimplementing the RPA workflow or publish the RPA workflow.

In another embodiment, a computer-implemented method for performingrobot access control and governance for RPA includes analyzingactivities of an RPA workflow of an RPA designer application againstaccess control and governance policy rules, by a code analyzer. When oneor more analyzed activities of the RPA workflow violate the accesscontrol and governance policy rules, the computer-implemented methodincludes preventing generation of an RPA robot or publication of the RPAworkflow until the RPA workflow satisfies the access control andgovernance policy rules, by the code analyzer.

In yet another embodiment, a computer program for performing robotaccess control and governance for RPA is embodied on a non-transitorycomputer-readable medium. The computer program configured to cause atleast one processor to determine a link to a file comprising accesscontrol and governance policy rules from a registry entry of a computingsystem and download the file using the determined link, or download thegovernance policy rules from a conductor application. The computerprogram is also configured to cause the at least one processor to readthe access control and governance policy rules for an RPA designerapplication from the downloaded file and analyze activities of an RPAworkflow of the RPA designer application against the access control andgovernance policy rules. When one or more analyzed activities of the RPAworkflow violate the access control and governance policy rules, thecomputer program is configured to cause the at least one processor toprevent generation of an RPA robot or publication of the RPA workflowuntil the RPA workflow satisfies the access control and governancepolicy rules. When the analyzed activities of the RPA workflow complywith all required access control and governance policy rules, thecomputer program is configured to cause the at least one processor togenerate an RPA robot implementing the RPA workflow or publish the RPAworkflow. The access control and governance policy rules comprise one ormore application and/or universal resource locator (URL) restrictions,one or more package restrictions, one or more activity restrictions, oneor more activity property requirements, or a combination thereof.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

In order that the advantages of certain embodiments of the inventionwill be readily understood, a more particular description of theinvention briefly described above will be rendered by reference tospecific embodiments that are illustrated in the appended drawings.While it should be understood that these drawings depict only typicalembodiments of the invention and are not therefore to be considered tobe limiting of its scope, the invention will be described and explainedwith additional specificity and detail through the use of theaccompanying drawings, in which:

FIG. 1 is an architectural diagram illustrating a robotic processautomation (RPA) system, according to an embodiment of the presentinvention.

FIG. 2 is an architectural diagram illustrating a deployed RPA system,according to an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 3 is an architectural diagram illustrating the relationship betweena designer, activities, and drivers, according to an embodiment of thepresent invention.

FIG. 4 is an architectural diagram illustrating an RPA system, accordingto an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 5 is an architectural diagram illustrating a computing systemconfigured to perform robot access control and governance for RPA,according to an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 6 is a screenshot illustrating a view of a folder of the Windows®Registry Editor for UiPath Studio™, according to an embodiment of thepresent invention.

FIG. 7 is a screenshot illustrating a portion of a Windows Explorer® UIin which the file SampleGovernanceRules.dll is installed in the Rulesfolder for UiPath Studio™, according to an embodiment of the presentinvention.

FIG. 8 is a screenshot illustrating a package management interface,according to an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 9 is screenshot illustrating an upper right portion of an RPAdesigner application with the send feedback icon disabled, according toan embodiment of the present invention.

FIGS. 10A-D are screenshots illustrating a workflow analyzer settingsinterface, according to an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 11 is a screenshot illustrating an RPA designer applicationsettings interface, according to an embodiment of the present invention.

FIGS. 12A and 12B are screenshots illustrating an RPA workflow,according to an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 13 illustrates an error list interface, according to an embodimentof the present invention.

FIG. 14 is a screenshot illustrating a workflow analyzer interface,according to an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 15 is an architectural diagram illustrating a system for performingaccess control and governance for RPA at robot execution, according toan embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 16 is a flowchart illustrating a process for performing robotaccess control and governance for an RPA designer application, accordingto an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 17 is a flowchart illustrating a process for performing robotaccess control and governance for RPA for an executing RPA robot,according to an embodiment of the present invention.

Unless otherwise indicated, similar reference characters denotecorresponding features consistently throughout the attached drawings.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS

Some embodiments pertain to robot access control and governance for RPA.RPA governance is the ability for organizations to put policies in placeto prevent users from developing RPA robots capable of taking actionsthat may harm the organization, such as violating GDPR, HIPAA, thirdparty application terms of service, etc. Since developers may create RPArobots that violate privacy laws, terms of service, etc. whileperforming their automations, some embodiments implement access controland governance restrictions at the robot and/or robot design applicationlevel. This may provide an added level of security and compliance intoto the RPA process development pipeline in some embodiments bypreventing RPA developers from taking dependencies on unapprovedsoftware libraries that may either introduce security risks or work in away that violates policies, regulations, privacy laws, and/or privacypolicies.

Some embodiments prevent RPA robots from taking actions that are allowedby the user but not by a robot. Traditionally, organizations can controlwhat a user may and may not do through access control to their systems.However, in the context of RPA, and especially attended automation, thiscontrol may break down. The robot performs tasks on behalf of the user,which means that the backend system is unable to distinguish that arobot is accessing the system versus a user.

This can be problematic for several reasons. For example, backendsystems may allow the user to access certain data that could be misused.However, good system design typically makes it difficult for the user tocause issues at any scale because doing something they should not isslow and tedious. By contrast, if an RPA robot is used, the robot cangreatly increase the scale of the data misuse or policy violation due toits speed of execution.

Consider the following examples. An organization uses a customerrelationship management (CRM) system for contacting customers that fullysupports various privacy options, such the “opt out” and “forget me”policies of GDPR and other user protection laws by checking whether auser has chosen the “do not contact me” option and providing links toprivacy policies and instructions for requesting for an organization to“forget them”. The organization has chosen to give a broad portion ofemployees access to the CRM system, but to only give a select fewemployees permissions to send emails in the system.

However, legitimate business purposes however require that this broaderset of users have access to customer profiles, which include their emailaddress (e.g., the employee may create or edit misinformation includingthe customer's email address in the system when working with acustomer). It is an organizational policy violation to email a customernot using the CRM system, but some employees are looking to learn someinformation and do not want to wait for the various approval channels togain those permissions or have an appropriately permissioned employee doso on their behalf. Without an RPA robot, the employees can stillviolate this policy, but because it is tedious to manually copy andpaste email addresses one-by-one out of the system. Even if employeesviolate this policy, the scale of the violation will be small, andtherefore, mitigate the risk to the organization if any violationhappens. However, an RPA robot can extract this data many orders ofmagnitude faster than a human (e.g., thousands of times faster, tens ofthousands of times faster, hundreds of thousands of times faster,millions of times faster, etc.) to create and send the emails, so wherea user may manually send 5-10 emails violating the policy and open thecompany up to risk of violating a GDPR “opt out” by the customer, if theuser creates a robot to this, they could send a large number ofviolating emails.

As another example, consider a healthcare organization that usescarefully protected systems to store all data in a HIPAA compliantmanner. Employees may legitimately access and work with this data in thecontext of the appropriate application(s). An employee who is frustratedwith the inefficiency of the system may want to write an RPA robot thatextracts patient data into an unprotected Excel® spreadsheet on his orher desktop. This is now a HIPAA violation, and if something were tohappen to that data, such as the employee's computer being stolen andaccessed, this could open the organization up to significant financialand legal liability.

As yet another example, consider the case where the terms of service fora third party application or service prohibit using automation to workwith the application or service. If an employee chooses to write an RPArobot that works against these terms of service, the company could belegally liable.

These problems and others may present substantial risks to organizationsemploying RPA robots. However, some embodiments reduce or eliminatesecurity and compliance risks from developers by preventing developersfrom using unapproved library and activity references. An RPA developer,whether a trained RPA developer (e.g., using UiPath Studio™) or anuntrained citizen developer (e.g., using UiPath StudioX™) may addreferences to libraries that are either considered unsafe or work in amanner that violates policy/regulatory rules.

Consider the following examples. The United States government does notallow the use of technology developed in Russia or other countriesconsidered to be unfriendly to be installed on U.S. government computingsystems. There are, however, some common libraries used in RPA that havebeen developed by Russian companies (e.g. the Abbyy® OCR engine). Whiledevelopers can choose to not have these libraries available by defaulton their computing systems, they cannot explicitly prevent a user fromtaking a dependency incorporating these libraries in an RPA project.While Internet access for RPA developers may be blocked, which is notdesirable for many reasons when developing software, a developer couldstill bring the unapproved libraries to the computing system via anothermechanism, such as a universal serial bus (USB) stick.

As another example, many financial institutions have strict policies inplace regarding what information may and may not leave their internalnetworks and firewalls. In the modern era, many RPA libraries (calledvia RPA activities) work by communicating with servers on public clouds,such as UiPath® document understanding activities. These financialinstitutions are concerned that users will not realize that using theseactivities is not allowed because they may send sensitive data outsidethe company firewall. However, there are no previously existingeffective options to prevent this from happening.

Still another concern is preventing RPA at scale from overwhelmingsystems. One of the reasons for the massive success of RPA is that itenables automation of legacy systems without requiring upgrades to thosesystems. Because legacy systems were not designed to be automated, theirdesign and performance may only be capable of handling interactions atthe speed at which humans can work. However, legacy applications are notalways able to keep up with the speed at which an RPA robot may interactwith the system. A robot that is not designed to operate within theseconstraints may essentially end up overwhelming legacy systems withfaster requests than they can process, essentially performing anaccidental denial of service (DoS) attack on the system. While settingsexist in UiPath Studio™, that enable delays between activities, there isno currently existing central enforcement mechanism to ensure thatdevelopers use these settings when working with legacy systems that arenot capable of operating at RPA robot speeds.

Yet another concern is ensuring organizational policy compliance. Manyorganizations have specific rules that they want to apply toautomations. For instance, some examples include enforcing that emailscreated by automation are only sent to internal employees and notexternal recipients, enforcing that all emails created by automation aresaved as a draft and not sent without human review, etc. Withoutappropriate governance, these policies may be violated by RPA robots.

To address various problems access control and governance problems thatmay occur in RPA, some embodiments provide the ability for organizationsto define and enforce governance policies. For example, this may beimplemented via a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) file that defineswhat an RPA robot can and/or cannot access. In some embodiments,organizations may place controls on what applications and/or universalresource locators (URLs) may and/or may not be automated, place controlson what activities may and/or may not be used, place controls on whatpackages (e.g., libraries) may and/or may not be used, provide theability to create and deploy custom rules that expand the governancecapabilities, provide various RPA designer application settings that maycontrol, for example, which package feeds users may use to installlibraries from, etc.

In some embodiments, governance may be enforced at design time (i.e.,when the developer is building, testing, and revising the RPA robotworkflow). However, this may make it difficult or impossible to enforcecertain policies. For instance, it may be difficult or impossible toenforce policies where the value that the policy is being applied to isonly known at runtime. If an organization desires to put a policy inplace preventing the access to certain websites, for instance, thedesign time analysis should be able to know the URL to flag. However, itis possible to construct the RPA program in such a way in someembodiments that the value is loaded from a dynamic source, such as anexternal file or a prompt asking the user. In this case, design timeanalysis is not sufficient since the value that violates the policy isnot known at design time. Another example is if an organization desiresto prevent automating email to customers outside the organization, butthe list of email addresses comes from a spreadsheet. In this case, theemails are not known at design time, but are instead a dynamic input tothe system that should be evaluated at runtime.

In certain embodiments, governance is enforced at runtime in addition toor in lieu of design time enforcement. This may be accomplished via aserver-side application for configuring and deploying policies, forexample. Policies may be automatically sent to user computing systemswhen these computing systems connect to a server-side conductorapplication, for example. The RPA designer application may automaticallyinsert code into the RPA robots that forces them to obtain thesepolicies and operate in compliance therewith.

In some embodiments, controls may be defined for an RPA designerapplication based on the organization, role, group, the individualdeveloper, etc. to control what developers may do when developing RPArobots. Policies may be defined and controls may be enforced to controlwhat an RPA robot may do when running an automation. Such embodimentsmay enable organizations to better meet their compliance and governancerequirements with respect to laws, regulations, agreements, and companypolicies.

In some embodiments, local files can only be modified by administrator.As such, non-administrator users should not be able to override orchange these files. Package feeds may be locked down such that onlydesired feeds are available and additional feeds cannot be added. Thisprevents users from using packages that are obtained elsewhere. Incertain embodiments, a “send feedback” tool may be disabled as part ofthe policy.

A “package feed”, as used herein, is a location (either remote or local)that contains access to additional libraries that the developer mayoptionally choose to install to gain additional capabilities for his orher automation project. A library, as used herein, is a packagecontaining computer code that provides additional capabilities (e.g.,activities) to a project. An example of a package feed is the UiPathConnect™ marketplace. This is an open location where community membersmay upload libraries including custom activities that they have written.If a UiPath® RPA developer wishes to use these capabilities, thatdeveloper can browse and add library references to his or her projects.An example of a library is the UiPath GSuite™ activities. The defaultinstallation of UiPath Studio™ does not give RPA developers the abilityto work with GSuite™. However, developers may install the GSuite™activity library that now gives that project the ability to useactivities for working with Gsuite™ (e.g., Gmail®, Google® Sheets,Google® Drive, etc.).

In some embodiments, a code analyzer, such as a program analyzer or anRPA workflow analyzer, is provided as an audit function for the RPAdesigner application. The workflow analyzer may define what is permittedfor users when they run the RPA designer application and may enforcepolicies. For instance, permitted URLs may be specified that a user maywork with, certain URLs may be restricted, etc.

As used herein, a “code analyzer” is computer code that runs a series ofrules that inspect the code written by the RPA user and produce feedback(e.g., messages, warnings, errors, etc.) when the application does notsatisfy the rules. In some embodiments, the code analyzer is provided bythe vendor of the RPA application (e.g., UiPath®) or written bycustomers using the RPA application. An example of a code analyzer ruleis the “App/Url Restrictions” rule in UiPath Studio™ that allowsorganizations to define what desktop applications and website URLs mayor may not be used in an automation project. If the user breaks one ofthese rules, he or she will receive a notification at the severityspecified in the governance policy. In some embodiments, this is usuallyan error that will prevent the automation from being published or run.

Certain embodiments may be employed for robotic process automation(RPA). FIG. 1 is an architectural diagram illustrating an RPA system100, according to an embodiment of the present invention. RPA system 100includes a designer 110 that allows a developer to design and implementworkflows. Designer 110 may provide a solution for applicationintegration, as well as automating third-party applications,administrative Information Technology (IT) tasks, and business ITprocesses. Designer 110 may facilitate development of an automationproject, which is a graphical representation of a business process.Simply put, designer 110 facilitates the development and deployment ofworkflows and robots.

The automation project enables automation of rule-based processes bygiving the developer control of the execution order and the relationshipbetween a custom set of steps developed in a workflow, defined herein as“activities.” One commercial example of an embodiment of designer 110 isUiPath Studio™. Each activity may include an action, such as clicking abutton, reading a file, writing to a log panel, etc. In someembodiments, workflows may be nested or embedded.

Some types of workflows may include, but are not limited to, sequences,flowcharts, FSMs, and/or global exception handlers. Sequences may beparticularly suitable for linear processes, enabling flow from oneactivity to another without cluttering a workflow. Flowcharts may beparticularly suitable to more complex business logic, enablingintegration of decisions and connection of activities in a more diversemanner through multiple branching logic operators. FSMs may beparticularly suitable for large workflows. FSMs may use a finite numberof states in their execution, which are triggered by a condition (i.e.,transition) or an activity. Global exception handlers may beparticularly suitable for determining workflow behavior whenencountering an execution error and for debugging processes.

Once a workflow is developed in designer 110, execution of businessprocesses is orchestrated by conductor 120, which orchestrates one ormore robots 130 that execute the workflows developed in designer 110.One commercial example of an embodiment of conductor 120 is UiPathOrchestrator™. Conductor 120 facilitates management of the creation,monitoring, and deployment of resources in an environment. Conductor 120may act as an integration point, or one of the aggregation points, withthird-party solutions and applications.

Conductor 120 may manage a fleet of robots 130, connecting and executingrobots 130 from a centralized point. Types of robots 130 that may bemanaged include, but are not limited to, attended robots 132, unattendedrobots 134, development robots (similar to unattended robots 134, butused for development and testing purposes), and nonproduction robots(similar to attended robots 132, but used for development and testingpurposes). Attended robots 132 are triggered by user events and operatealongside a human on the same computing system. Attended robots 132 maybe used with conductor 120 for a centralized process deployment andlogging medium. Attended robots 132 may help the human user accomplishvarious tasks, and may be triggered by user events. In some embodiments,processes cannot be started from conductor 120 on this type of robotand/or they cannot run under a locked screen. In certain embodiments,attended robots 132 can only be started from a robot tray or from acommand prompt. Attended robots 132 should run under human supervisionin some embodiments.

Unattended robots 134 run unattended in virtual environments and canautomate many processes. Unattended robots 134 may be responsible forremote execution, monitoring, scheduling, and providing support for workqueues. Debugging for all robot types may be run in designer 110 in someembodiments. Both attended and unattended robots may automate varioussystems and applications including, but not limited to, mainframes, webapplications, VMs, enterprise applications (e.g., those produced bySAP®, SalesForce®, Oracle®, etc.), and computing system applications(e.g., desktop and laptop applications, mobile device applications,wearable computer applications, etc.).

Conductor 120 may have various capabilities including, but not limitedto, provisioning, deployment, versioning, configuration, queueing,monitoring, logging, and/or providing interconnectivity. Provisioningmay include creating and maintenance of connections between robots 130and conductor 120 (e.g., a web application). Deployment may includeassuring the correct delivery of package versions to assigned robots 130for execution. Versioning may include management of unique instances ofsome process or configuration in some embodiments. Configuration mayinclude maintenance and delivery of robot environments and processconfigurations. Queueing may include providing management of queues andqueue items. Monitoring may include keeping track of robotidentification data and maintaining user permissions. Logging mayinclude storing and indexing logs to a database (e.g., an SQL database)and/or another storage mechanism (e.g., ElasticSearch®, which providesthe ability to store and quickly query large datasets). Conductor 120may provide interconnectivity by acting as the centralized point ofcommunication for third-party solutions and/or applications.

Robots 130 are execution agents that run workflows built in designer110. One commercial example of some embodiments of robot(s) 130 isUiPath Robots™ In some embodiments, robots 130 install the MicrosoftWindows® Service Control Manager (SCM)-managed service by default. As aresult, such robots 130 can open interactive Windows® sessions under thelocal system account, and have the rights of a Windows® service.

In some embodiments, robots 130 can be installed in a user mode. Forsuch robots 130, this means they have the same rights as the user underwhich a given robot 130 has been installed. This feature may also beavailable for High Density (HD) robots, which ensure full utilization ofeach machine at its maximum potential. In some embodiments, any type ofrobot 130 may be configured in an HD environment.

Robots 130 in some embodiments are split into several components, eachbeing dedicated to a particular automation task. The robot components insome embodiments include, but are not limited to, SCM-managed robotservices, user mode robot services, executors, agents, and command line.SCM-managed robot services manage and monitor Windows® sessions and actas a proxy between conductor 120 and the execution hosts (i.e., thecomputing systems on which robots 130 are executed). These services aretrusted with and manage the credentials for robots 130. A consoleapplication is launched by the SCM under the local system.

User mode robot services in some embodiments manage and monitor Windows®sessions and act as a proxy between conductor 120 and the executionhosts. User mode robot services may be trusted with and manage thecredentials for robots 130. A Windows® application may automatically belaunched if the SCM-managed robot service is not installed.

Executors may run given jobs under a Windows® session (i.e., they mayexecute workflows. Executors may be aware of per-monitor dots per inch(DPI) settings. Agents may be Windows® Presentation Foundation (WPF)applications that display the available jobs in the system tray window.Agents may be a client of the service. Agents may request to start orstop jobs and change settings. The command line is a client of theservice. The command line is a console application that can request tostart jobs and waits for their output.

Having components of robots 130 split as explained above helpsdevelopers, support users, and computing systems more easily run,identify, and track what each component is executing. Special behaviorsmay be configured per component this way, such as setting up differentfirewall rules for the executor and the service. The executor may alwaysbe aware of DPI settings per monitor in some embodiments. As a result,workflows may be executed at any DPI, regardless of the configuration ofthe computing system on which they were created. Projects from designer110 may also be independent of browser zoom level in some embodiments.For applications that are DPI-unaware or intentionally marked asunaware, DPI may be disabled in some embodiments.

FIG. 2 is an architectural diagram illustrating a deployed RPA system200, according to an embodiment of the present invention. In someembodiments, RPA system 200 may be, or may be a part of, RPA system 100of FIG. 1 . It should be noted that the client side, the server side, orboth, may include any desired number of computing systems withoutdeviating from the scope of the invention. On the client side, a robotapplication 210 includes executors 212, an agent 214, and a designer216. However, in some embodiments, designer 216 may not be running oncomputing system 210. Executors 212 are running processes. Severalbusiness projects may run simultaneously, as shown in FIG. 2 . Agent 214(e.g., a Windows® service) is the single point of contact for allexecutors 212 in this embodiment. All messages in this embodiment arelogged into conductor 230, which processes them further via databaseserver 240, indexer server 250, or both. As discussed above with respectto FIG. 1 , executors 212 may be robot components.

In some embodiments, a robot represents an association between a machinename and a username. The robot may manage multiple executors at the sametime. On computing systems that support multiple interactive sessionsrunning simultaneously (e.g., Windows® Server 2012), multiple robots maybe running at the same time, each in a separate Windows® session using aunique username. This is referred to as HD robots above.

Agent 214 is also responsible for sending the status of the robot (e.g.,periodically sending a “heartbeat” message indicating that the robot isstill functioning) and downloading the required version of the packageto be executed. The communication between agent 214 and conductor 230 isalways initiated by agent 214 in some embodiments. In the notificationscenario, agent 214 may open a WebSocket channel that is later used byconductor 230 to send commands to the robot (e.g., start, stop, etc.).

On the server side, a presentation layer (web application 232, Open DataProtocol (OData) Representative State Transfer (REST) ApplicationProgramming Interface (API) endpoints 234, and notification andmonitoring 236), a service layer (API implementation/business logic238), and a persistence layer (database server 240 and indexer server250) are included. Conductor 230 includes web application 232, ODataREST API endpoints 234, notification and monitoring 236, and APIimplementation/business logic 238. In some embodiments, most actionsthat a user performs in the interface of conductor 230 (e.g., viabrowser 220) are performed by calling various APIs. Such actions mayinclude, but are not limited to, starting jobs on robots,adding/removing data in queues, scheduling jobs to run unattended, etc.without deviating from the scope of the invention. Web application 232is the visual layer of the server platform. In this embodiment, webapplication 232 uses Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) and JavaScript(JS). However, any desired markup languages, script languages, or anyother formats may be used without deviating from the scope of theinvention. The user interacts with web pages from web application 232via browser 220 in this embodiment in order to perform various actionsto control conductor 230. For instance, the user may create robotgroups, assign packages to the robots, analyze logs per robot and/or perprocess, start and stop robots, etc.

In addition to web application 232, conductor 230 also includes servicelayer that exposes OData REST API endpoints 234. However, otherendpoints may be included without deviating from the scope of theinvention. The REST API is consumed by both web application 232 andagent 214. Agent 214 is the supervisor of one or more robots on theclient computer in this embodiment.

The REST API in this embodiment covers configuration, logging,monitoring, and queueing functionality. The configuration endpoints maybe used to define and configure application users, permissions, robots,assets, releases, and environments in some embodiments. Logging RESTendpoints may be used to log different information, such as errors,explicit messages sent by the robots, and other environment-specificinformation, for instance. Deployment REST endpoints may be used by therobots to query the package version that should be executed if the startjob command is used in conductor 230. Queueing REST endpoints may beresponsible for queues and queue item management, such as adding data toa queue, obtaining a transaction from the queue, setting the status of atransaction, etc.

Monitoring REST endpoints may monitor web application 232 and agent 214.Notification and monitoring API 236 may be REST endpoints that are usedfor registering agent 214, delivering configuration settings to agent214, and for sending/receiving notifications from the server and agent214. Notification and monitoring API 236 may also use WebSocketcommunication in some embodiments.

The persistence layer includes a pair of servers in thisembodiment—database server 240 (e.g., a SQL server) and indexer server250. Database server 240 in this embodiment stores the configurations ofthe robots, robot groups, associated processes, users, roles, schedules,etc. This information is managed through web application 232 in someembodiments. Database server 240 may manage queues and queue items. Insome embodiments, database server 240 may store messages logged by therobots (in addition to or in lieu of indexer server 250).

Indexer server 250, which is optional in some embodiments, stores andindexes the information logged by the robots. In certain embodiments,indexer server 250 may be disabled through configuration settings. Insome embodiments, indexer server 250 uses ElasticSearch®, which is anopen source project full-text search engine. Messages logged by robots(e.g., using activities like log message or write line) may be sentthrough the logging REST endpoint(s) to indexer server 250, where theyare indexed for future utilization.

FIG. 3 is an architectural diagram illustrating the relationship 300between a designer 310, activities 320, 330, and drivers 340, accordingto an embodiment of the present invention. Per the above, a developeruses designer 310 to develop workflows that are executed by robots.Workflows may include user-defined activities 320 and UI automationactivities 330. Some embodiments are able to identify non-textual visualcomponents in an image, which is called computer vision (CV) herein.Some CV activities pertaining to such components may include, but arenot limited to, click, type, get text, hover, element exists, refreshscope, highlight, etc. Click in some embodiments identifies an elementusing CV, optical character recognition (OCR), fuzzy text matching, andmulti-anchor, for example, and clicks it. Type may identify an elementusing the above and types in the element. Get text may identify thelocation of specific text and scan it using OCR. Hover may identify anelement and hover over it. Element exists may check whether an elementexists on the screen using the techniques described above. In someembodiments, there may be hundreds or even thousands of activities thatcan be implemented in designer 310. However, any number and/or type ofactivities may be available without deviating from the scope of theinvention.

UI automation activities 330 are a subset of special, lower levelactivities that are written in lower level code (e.g., CV activities)and facilitate interactions with the screen. UI automation activities330 facilitate these interactions via drivers 340 that allow the robotto interact with the desired software. For instance, drivers 340 mayinclude OS drivers 342, browser drivers 344, VM drivers 346, enterpriseapplication drivers 348, etc.

Drivers 340 may interact with the OS at a low level looking for hooks,monitoring for keys, etc. They may facilitate integration with Chrome®,IE®, Citrix®, SAP®, etc. For instance, the “click” activity performs thesame role in these different applications via drivers 340.

FIG. 4 is an architectural diagram illustrating an RPA system 400,according to an embodiment of the present invention. In someembodiments, RPA system 400 may be or include RPA systems 100 and/or 200of FIGS. 1 and/or 2 . RPA system 400 includes multiple client computingsystems 410 running robots. Computing systems 410 are able tocommunicate with a conductor computing system 420 via a web applicationrunning thereon. Conductor computing system 420, in turn, is able tocommunicate with a database server 430 and an optional indexer server440.

With respect to FIGS. 1 and 3 , it should be noted that while a webapplication is used in these embodiments, any suitable client/serversoftware may be used without deviating from the scope of the invention.For instance, the conductor may run a server-side application thatcommunicates with non-web-based client software applications on theclient computing systems.

FIG. 5 is an architectural diagram illustrating a computing system 500configured to perform robot access control and governance for RPA,according to an embodiment of the present invention. In someembodiments, computing system 500 may be one or more of the computingsystems depicted and/or described herein. Computing system 500 includesa bus 505 or other communication mechanism for communicatinginformation, and processor(s) 510 coupled to bus 505 for processinginformation. Processor(s) 510 may be any type of general or specificpurpose processor, including a Central Processing Unit (CPU), anApplication Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), a Field ProgrammableGate Array (FPGA), a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), multiple instancesthereof, and/or any combination thereof. Processor(s) 510 may also havemultiple processing cores, and at least some of the cores may beconfigured to perform specific functions. Multi-parallel processing maybe used in some embodiments. In certain embodiments, at least one ofprocessor(s) 510 may be a neuromorphic circuit that includes processingelements that mimic biological neurons. In some embodiments,neuromorphic circuits may not require the typical components of a VonNeumann computing architecture.

Computing system 500 further includes a memory 515 for storinginformation and instructions to be executed by processor(s) 510. Memory515 can be comprised of any combination of Random Access Memory (RAM),Read Only Memory (ROM), flash memory, cache, static storage such as amagnetic or optical disk, or any other types of non-transitorycomputer-readable media or combinations thereof. Non-transitorycomputer-readable media may be any available media that can be accessedby processor(s) 510 and may include volatile media, non-volatile media,or both. The media may also be removable, non-removable, or both.

Additionally, computing system 500 includes a communication device 520,such as a transceiver, to provide access to a communications network viaa wireless and/or wired connection. In some embodiments, communicationdevice 520 may be configured to use Frequency Division Multiple Access(FDMA), Single Carrier FDMA (SC-FDMA), Time Division Multiple Access(TDMA), Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Orthogonal FrequencyDivision Multiplexing (OFDM), Orthogonal Frequency Division MultipleAccess (OFDMA), Global System for Mobile (GSM) communications, GeneralPacket Radio Service (GPRS), Universal Mobile Telecommunications System(UMTS), cdma2000, Wideband CDMA (W-CDMA), High-Speed Downlink PacketAccess (HSDPA), High-Speed Uplink Packet Access (HSUPA), High-SpeedPacket Access (HSPA), Long Term Evolution (LTE), LTE Advanced (LTE-A),802.11x, Wi-Fi, Zigbee, Ultra-WideBand (UWB), 802.16x, 802.15, HomeNode-B (HnB), Bluetooth, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), InfraredData Association (IrDA), Near-Field Communications (NFC), fifthgeneration (5G), New Radio (NR), any combination thereof, and/or anyother currently existing or future-implemented communications standardand/or protocol without deviating from the scope of the invention. Insome embodiments, communication device 520 may include one or moreantennas that are singular, arrayed, phased, switched, beamforming,beamsteering, a combination thereof, and or any other antennaconfiguration without deviating from the scope of the invention.

Processor(s) 510 are further coupled via bus 505 to a display 525, suchas a plasma display, a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD), a Light EmittingDiode (LED) display, a Field Emission Display (FED), an Organic LightEmitting Diode (OLED) display, a flexible OLED display, a flexiblesubstrate display, a projection display, a 4K display, a high definitiondisplay, a Retina® display, an In-Plane Switching (IPS) display, or anyother suitable display for displaying information to a user. Display 525may be configured as a touch (haptic) display, a three dimensional (3D)touch display, a multi-input touch display, a multi-touch display, etc.using resistive, capacitive, surface-acoustic wave (SAW) capacitive,infrared, optical imaging, dispersive signal technology, acoustic pulserecognition, frustrated total internal reflection, etc. Any suitabledisplay device and haptic I/O may be used without deviating from thescope of the invention.

A keyboard 530 and a cursor control device 535, such as a computermouse, a touchpad, etc., are further coupled to bus 505 to enable a userto interface with computing system 500. However, in certain embodiments,a physical keyboard and mouse may not be present, and the user mayinteract with the device solely through display 525 and/or a touchpad(not shown). Any type and combination of input devices may be used as amatter of design choice. In certain embodiments, no physical inputdevice and/or display is present. For instance, the user may interactwith computing system 500 remotely via another computing system incommunication therewith, or computing system 500 may operateautonomously.

Memory 515 stores software modules that provide functionality whenexecuted by processor(s) 510. The modules include an operating system540 for computing system 500. The modules further include a robot accesscontrol and governance module 545 that is configured to perform all orpart of the processes described herein or derivatives thereof. Computingsystem 500 may include one or more additional functional modules 550that include additional functionality.

One skilled in the art will appreciate that a “system” could be embodiedas a server, an embedded computing system, a personal computer, aconsole, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a cell phone, a tabletcomputing device, a quantum computing system, or any other suitablecomputing device, or combination of devices without deviating from thescope of the invention. Presenting the above-described functions asbeing performed by a “system” is not intended to limit the scope of thepresent invention in any way, but is intended to provide one example ofthe many embodiments of the present invention. Indeed, methods, systems,and apparatuses disclosed herein may be implemented in localized anddistributed forms consistent with computing technology, including cloudcomputing systems.

It should be noted that some of the system features described in thisspecification have been presented as modules, in order to moreparticularly emphasize their implementation independence. For example, amodule may be implemented as a hardware circuit comprising custom verylarge scale integration (VLSI) circuits or gate arrays, off-the-shelfsemiconductors such as logic chips, transistors, or other discretecomponents. A module may also be implemented in programmable hardwaredevices such as field programmable gate arrays, programmable arraylogic, programmable logic devices, graphics processing units, or thelike.

A module may also be at least partially implemented in software forexecution by various types of processors. An identified unit ofexecutable code may, for instance, include one or more physical orlogical blocks of computer instructions that may, for instance, beorganized as an object, procedure, or function. Nevertheless, theexecutables of an identified module need not be physically locatedtogether, but may include disparate instructions stored in differentlocations that, when joined logically together, comprise the module andachieve the stated purpose for the module. Further, modules may bestored on a computer-readable medium, which may be, for instance, a harddisk drive, flash device, RAM, tape, and/or any other suchnon-transitory computer-readable medium used to store data withoutdeviating from the scope of the invention.

Indeed, a module of executable code could be a single instruction, ormany instructions, and may even be distributed over several differentcode segments, among different programs, and across several memorydevices. Similarly, operational data may be identified and illustratedherein within modules, and may be embodied in any suitable form andorganized within any suitable type of data structure. The operationaldata may be collected as a single data set, or may be distributed overdifferent locations including over different storage devices, and mayexist, at least partially, merely as electronic signals on a system ornetwork.

In some embodiments, the governance information for the RPA designerapplication may be stored in a file that cannot be edited by the RPAdeveloper. For instance, FIG. 6 is a screenshot illustrating a view of afolder 600 of the Windows® Registry Editor 600 for the RPA designerapplication (in this case, UiPath Studio™) Under the pathComputer\HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\UiPath, a registry key namedGovernanceSource 610 is set (e.g. when the RPA designer application isinstalled) that points to a remote policy file available via anassociated link 620. The policy available at this link may be read onlyto the computing system and will be used by the RPA designer applicationor the RPA robot to govern certain permissions. This policy may bedefined at the individual user level, group level, role level,organization level, etc. By including the policy via a remote link,updates to the policy can be made whenever desired, and the updatedpolicy will be automatically accessed by consuming RPA robots and/or RPAdesigner applications. In this example, the policy file provides theability to define different sets of policies for the developmentprofile. In some embodiments, different policies may be set forexperienced programmers and for citizen developers who may not haveprogramming knowledge since these developers may have different needs. Aportion of an example policy file for UiPath Studio™ that defines rulesfor development users, business users, and StudioPro users is includedbelow. The sections in bold specify where additional rules or countersmay be defined in this example.

{  “Metadata”: {   “Version”: “1.0”,  },  “Info”: {   “Name”: “SamplePolicy Registry Key”  },  “Profiles”: {   “Development”: {    “Shell”: {    “IsFeedbackEnabled”: true,     “HideGettingStartedScreen”: false   },    “SourceControl”: {     “CheckInBeforePublish”: false    },   “Workflow”: {     “DockedAnnotations”: true,     “AnalyzeOnPublish”:false,     “AnalyzeOnRun”: false    }    “PackageManager”: {    “AllowAddRemoveFeeds”: false,     “AllowEnableDisableFeeds”: false,    “AllowOrchestratorFeeds”: true,     “Feeds”: [      {       “Name”:“Local”,       “Source”: “C:\\Program Files      (x86)\\UiPath\\Studio\\Packages”,       “IsEnabled”: true      },     {       “Name”: “Official”,       “Source”:“https://www.myget.org/F/workflow/”,       “IsEnabled”: true      },     {       “Name”: “Connect”,       “Source”:“https://gallery.uipath.com/api/v2”,       “IsEnabled”: true      }    ]    },    “Analyzer”: {     “AllowEdit”: false,    “ReferencedRulesConfigFile”: null,     “EmbeddedRulesConfig”: {     “Rules”: [       {        “Id”: “ST-NMG-001”,        “IsEnabled”:true,        “Parameters”: [         {          “Name”: “Regex”,         “Value”: null         }        ],        “ErrorLevel”: “Off”      },       <ADDITIONAL RULES DEFINED HERE>      ],      “Counters”:[       {        “Id”: “ST-NMG-001”,        “IsEnabled”: true,       “Parameters”: [ ]       },       <ADDITIONAL COUNTERS DEFINEDHERE>      ]     }    }   },   “Business”: {    “Shell”: {    “IsFeedbackEnabled”: true,     “HideGettingStartedScreen”: false   },    “SourceControl”: {     “CheckInBeforePublish”: false    },   “Workflow”: {     “DockedAnnotations”: true,     “AnalyzeOnPublish”:false,     “AnalyzeOnRun”: false    },    “PackageManager”: {    “AllowAddRemoveFeeds”: false,     “AllowEnableDisableFeeds”: false,    “AllowOrchestratorFeeds”: true,     “Feeds”: [      {       “Name”:“Local”,       “Source”: “C:\\Program Files      (x86)\\UiPath\\Studio\\Packages”,       “IsEnabled”: true      },     {       “Name”: “Official”,       “Source”:“https://www.myget.org/F/workflow/”,       “IsEnabled”: true      },     {       “Name”: “Connect”,       “Source”:“https://gallery.uipath.com/api/v2”,       “IsEnabled”: true      }    ]    },    “Analyzer”: {     “AllowEdit”: false,    “ReferencedRulesConfigFile”: null,     “EmbeddedRulesConfig”: {     “Rules”: [       {        “Id”: “ST-NMG-001”,        “IsEnabled”:true,        “Parameters”: [         {          “Name”: “Regex”,         “Value”: null         }        ],        “ErrorLevel”: “Off”      },       <ADDITIONAL RULES DEFINED HERE>      ],      “Counters”:[       {        “Id”: “ST-NMG-001”,        “IsEnabled”: true,       “Parameters”: [ ]       },       <ADDITIONAL COUNTERS DEFINEDHERE>      ]     }    }   },   “StudioPro”: {    “Shell”: {    “IsFeedbackEnabled”: true,     “HideGettingStartedScreen”: false   },    “SourceControl”: {     “CheckInBeforePublish”: false    },   “Workflow”: {     “DockedAnnotations”: true,     “AnalyzeOnPublish”:false,     “AnalyzeOnRun”: false    },    “PackageManager”: {    “AllowAddRemoveFeeds”: false,     “AllowEnableDisableFeeds”: false,    “AllowOrchestratorFeeds”: true,     “Feeds”: [      {       “Name”:“Local”,       “Source”: “C:\\Program Files      (x86)\\UiPath\\Studio\\Packages”,       “IsEnabled”: true      },     {       “Name”: “Official”,       “Source”:“https://www.myget.org/F/workflow/”,       “IsEnabled”: true      },     {       “Name”: “Connect”,       “Source”:“https://gallery.uipath.com/api/v2”,       “IsEnabled”: true      }    ]    },    “Analyzer”: {     “AllowEdit”: false,    “ReferencedRulesConfigFile”: null,     “EmbeddedRulesConfig”: {     “Rules”: [       {        “Id”: “ST-NMG-001”,        “IsEnabled”:true,        “Parameters”: [         {          “Name”: “Regex”,         “Value”: null         }        ],        “ErrorLevel”: “Off”      },       <ADDITIONAL RULES DEFINED HERE>      ],      “Counters”:[       {        “Id”: “ ST-NMG-001”,        “IsEnabled”: true,       “Parameters”: [ ]       },       <ADDITIONAL RULES DEFINED HERE>     ]     }    }   }  } }

It should be noted that while the rules and counters shown here are thesame for each user type, this need not necessarily be the case, andtypically would not be in a practical implementation. It should also benoted that while a file including control and governance policy rules isobtained using a registry entry in some embodiments, in certainembodiments, the file or other policy information format is deliveredfrom a by a conductor application. In certain embodiments, a server UIallows an administrator to define the policy, which will be deliveredvia a connection (e.g., as a .json payload). However, this policy maynot necessarily be “a file” that the administrator explicitly authors insome embodiments.

In some embodiments, custom governance rules may be developed as part ofa workflow analyzer process. For instance, in some embodiments, theinstallation script for the RPA designer application may install thecustom governance rules to the user's computing system. See, forinstance, screenshot 700 of FIG. 7 which shows a portion of a WindowsExplorer® UI, in which the file SampleGovernanceRules.dll 710 isinstalled in the Rules folder for UiPath Studio™. BecauseSampleGovernanceRules.dll 710 is located in the Program Files folder,only an administrator may modify it. An end user without administrativeprivileges on his or her machine cannot. Thus, the end user without suchprivileges will have the governance policy and will not be able tooverride or change it.

FIG. 8 is a screenshot illustrating a package management interface 800,according to an embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment,the package feeds for the developer have been locked down. Morespecifically, the developer only has access to official package feed810, and the developer cannot enable or disable official package feed810. The developer also cannot enter a name 820 or source 830 for auser-defined package, use add button 840 to add the user-definedpackage, or use save button 850 to save modified package settings. Thisprevents developers from getting activity packages from anywhere thatthe organization does not want them to.

Some organizations may have concerns about developers potentiallyleaking sensitive information to the provider of the RPA designerapplication during development. Accordingly, in some embodiments, thesend feedback functionality is disabled in the RPA designer applicationas a matter of policy. See, for example, FIG. 9 , which is screenshotillustrating an upper right portion 900 of an RPA designer applicationwith the send feedback icon disabled and a message 910 indicating thatthis is the case.

FIG. 10A is a screenshot illustrating a workflow analyzer settingsinterface 1000, according to an embodiment of the present invention. Insome embodiments, the workflow analyzer settings are taken from a policyconfiguration file. As can be seen in FIG. 10A, various rules are listedin a rules pane 1002 with a respective code, name, scope, and defaultaction. Specific settings options for a selected rule are shown in arule settings pane 1004.

In this embodiment, there are four types of access restrictions—app/URLrestrictions 1010, package restrictions 1020, activity restrictions1030, and activity property requirements 1040. However, any numberand/or type of access restrictions may be used without deviating fromthe scope of the invention. App/URL restrictions 1010 control whichapplications and/or URLs a user of the RPA designer application isand/or is not allowed to work with. For instance, with reference to FIG.10B, prohibited applications would be shown in prohibited applicationsfield 1012 if any were prohibited and allowed applications are shown inallowed applications field 1014. If the user scrolled down, prohibitedURLs and allowed URLs would also be shown in respective fields.Naturally, a given application or URL cannot be both prohibited (i.e.,blacklisted) and allowed (i.e., whitelisted). In certain embodiments, ifallowed applications are specified, the user may only work with thoseapplications. In this embodiment, these fields are read only.

Package restrictions 1020 control which packages are prohibited. Forinstance, with reference to FIG. 10C, prohibited packages may be listedin prohibited packages field 1022. This may restrict categories ofpackages that the organization does not want a user to have access to insome embodiments. In certain embodiments, allowed packages may be listedin addition to or in lieu of prohibited packages field 1022. Prohibitedpackages field 1022 is read only in this embodiment.

Activity restrictions 1030 control which activities the user is and/oris not allowed to use. For instance, with reference to FIG. 10D,prohibited activities would be shown in prohibited activities field 1032if any were prohibited and allowed activities would be shown in allowedactivities field 1034 if any activities were listed as allowed. Thus, ifrestrictions are not desired at the level of an entire package, butthere are certain activities that should not be permitted and/or onlycertain activities should be allowed, this can be specified via activityrestrictions 1030. In this embodiment, these fields are read only.

In some embodiments, if no activities are specified as being allowedand/or disallowed, this defaults to all activities being allowed. Incertain embodiments, only allowed or disallowed is enforced, but notboth. For instance, in such embodiments, if both allowed and disallowedactivities are included, the “allowed” set may take precedence and thedisallowed set may be ignored since specifically specifying allowedactivities is considered more restrictive.

Activity property requirements 1040 allow an organization to definecustom rules. Returning to FIG. 10A, a rule configuration field 1042 hasa value of “Property:*Draft*,Activity:*MailX,Value:True”. In thisexample, for MailX activities that work with Outlook® in UiPathStudioX™, they have to have the Draft properties set to True. As withthe other restriction types, rule configuration field 1042 is read onlyfor the user. As can be seen in FIGS. 10A-D, some rules are set toprovide errors as a default action and others are set to providewarnings.

As shown in the screenshot of FIG. 11 , in RPA designer applicationsettings interface 1100, various settings can be enforced for the RPAworkflow design. In this case, the workflow has to pass the workflowanalyzer both before run and before publish. This enforcement can beseen in settings 1110 and 1120, respectively. This means that for thegovernance policies set as rules in workflow analyzer settings interface1000, the workflow must comply with all rules that are set to throw anerror in the case of noncompliance.

FIGS. 12A and 12B are screenshots illustrating an RPA workflow 1200,according to an embodiment of the present invention. The user is tryingto automate the content at link 1210 (here, “https://www.uipath.com/”).Consider the case that this is not a permitted URL based on the rules ofthe workflow analyzer. Also consider the case that a rule existsrequiring “save as draft” checkbox 1220 to be selected. When the userseeks to validate the workflow, an error list interface 1300 appears inthis embodiment. See FIG. 13 . Error list interface 1300 indicates thatthe “save as draft” property does not meet the organization's guidelinesand that https://www.uipath.com/is not an allowed application defined bythe organization for UI automation.

Per the above, policies may be defined based on the technicalsophistication of the user in some embodiments. For example, morecomplex rules may be defined for UiPath Studio™, which tends to be usedby RPA developers with programming knowledge, than UiPath StudioX™,which may be used by individuals of any level of programming knowledgeor even the lack thereof. For instance, users of an RPA designerapplication that are more technically sophisticated may have access tomore package feeds, have the ability to disable feeds, have a richer setof rules, etc.

Consider workflow analyzer interface 1400 of FIG. 14 . In this case, arich set of rules is provided for an RPA developer, including customrules. A custom package version requirements rule 1410 is implemented.The mail activities “UiPath.Mail.Activities” must have a minimum versionof 1.6.0 and a maximum version of 1.6.0 in rule configuration field1412, and an error will be thrown if another version is referenced. Thisrequires that UiPath.Mail.Activities must have exactly this version.Also, allow prerelease packages field 1414 is set to “True.”

Per the above, in some embodiments, governance is enabled as part of aninstallation script for an RPA designer application. In certainembodiments, a remote policy file may be set via a registration key sothat the RPA designer application always has the current version of thegovernance policies. Alternatively, the policy file may be in aprotected location on the local computing system on which the RPAdesigner application resides. In some embodiments, custom rules aredeployed to a protected “rules” folder as part of the installationscript.

In some embodiments, separate policies are enforced for technicallysavvy users and users without substantial programming knowledge. Incertain embodiments, different policies are applied based on a givenuser, the user's role, the user's group, etc. In some embodiments, userscannot run or publish noncompliant RPA workflows.

FIG. 15 is an architectural diagram illustrating a system 1500 forperforming access control and governance for RPA at robot execution,according to an embodiment of the present invention. System 1500includes user computing systems, such as desktop computer 1502, tablet1504, and smart phone 1506. However, any desired computing system may beused without deviating from the scope of invention including, but notlimited to, smart watches, laptop computers, Internet-of-Things (IoT)devices, vehicle computing systems, etc.

Each computing system 1502, 1504, 1506 has an RPA robot 1510 runningthereon that executes one or more automations. However, in certainembodiments, computing systems 1502, 1504, 1506 may execute differentrobots. When executing its process, the RPA robot requests certaininformation from a server 1530 (e.g. sending requests to a conductorapplication running on server 1530) via a network 1520 (e.g., a localarea network (LAN), a mobile communications network, a satellitecommunications network, the Internet, any combination thereof, etc.).For instance, RPA robot 1510 may communicate with server 1530 to send orreceive data (e.g., pushing/pulling from a data queue), retrievesecurely stored credential/asset information (e.g., usernames/passwords,access tokens, etc.), log information from the activities (e.g.,execution logs), report “heartbeat status” (e.g., that RPA robot 1510 isrunning correctly), check for “orchestration commands” (e.g., “runthis”, “abort/cancel execution”, etc.), or any other suitablecommunications without deviating from the scope of the invention. Insome embodiments, server 1530 may run the conductor application and thedata may be sent periodically as part of the heartbeat message. Server1530 obtains access control and governance rules for a given robot fromone or more files 1532, from a database 1540, or both.

Server 1530 checks the action(s) to be performed by robot 1510 and/orthe information requested by the RPA robot against the access controland governance rules. If robot 1510 is permitted to take the action orobtain the information, server 1530 provides the requested informationto robot 1510 and/or sends information to a validation application onthe respective computing system indicating that the action isacceptable. If not, server 1530 does not provide the requestedinformation to robot 1510 and/or sends information to the validationapplication on the respective computing system indicating that theaction attempted by robot 1510 is not acceptable. In certainembodiments, the validation application may end the process associatedwith robot 1510.

In some embodiments, the action that is not permitted may be an actionpermitted for a human user but not an RPA robot. In certain embodiments,server 1530 may verify that robot 1510 pauses long enough for one ormore legacy systems and may delay obtaining the information requested bythe robot or accepting new information requests from the robot until thedelay period expires. In certain embodiments, governance is enforced atruntime in addition to design time enforcement. Policies may beautomatically sent to computing systems 1502, 1504, 1506 in someembodiments when computing systems 1502, 1504, 1506 connect to aserver-side conductor application of server 1530, for example. The RPAdesigner application may automatically insert code into the RPA robotsthat forces them to obtain these policies and operate in compliancetherewith in some embodiments.

FIG. 16 is a flowchart illustrating a process 1600 for performing robotaccess control and governance for an RPA designer application, accordingto an embodiment of the present invention. The process begins withdetermining a link to a file including access control and governancepolicy rules from a registry entry of a computing system at 1605 anddownloading the file using the determined link at 1610. In someembodiments, the access control and governance policy rules areimplemented via an installation script for the RPA designer application.A workflow analyzer reads the access control and governance policy rulesfor the RPA designer application from the file at 1615.

In some embodiments, the access control and governance policy rulesinclude controls on which applications and/or URLs may and/or may not beautomated, controls on what activities may and/or may not be used in theRPA workflow, controls on what packages may and/or may not be used forthe RPA workflow, or a combination thereof. In certain embodiments, theaccess control and governance policy rules are defined for the RPAdesigner application based on an organization, a role, a group, anindividual developer, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, theaccess control and governance policy rules cannot be modified by a userof the RPA designer application as enforced by an operating system of acomputing system on which the RPA designer application is executed. Incertain embodiments, the access control and governance policy rulesinclude one or more application and/or URL restrictions, one or morepackage restrictions, one or more activity restrictions, one or moreactivity property requirements, or a combination thereof.

In some embodiments, various interfaces may be displayed and unpermitteduser modifications may be prevented at 1620. For instance, a packagemanagement interface including packages that may be accessed by theactivities of an RPA workflow may be displayed and a user of the RPAdesigner application may be prevented from modifying the permittedpackages or adding new packages that are not permitted based on theaccess control and governance policy rules. As another example, aworkflow analyzer settings interface may be displayed that lists theaccess control and governance policy rules and the user of the RPAdesigner application may be prevented from modifying the access controland governance policy rules.

Activities of the RPA workflow of the RPA designer application areanalyzed against the access control and governance policy rules at 1625.In some embodiments, the analysis of the activities of the RPA workflowincludes verifying whether one or more libraries to be accessed in anRPA workflow activity are included in a whitelist or not included in ablacklist. If the validation succeeds at 1630 (i.e., the RPA workflowactivities comply with all required access control and governance policyrules), an RPA robot implementing the RPA workflow is generated or theRPA workflow is published at 1635. However, if the validation fails at1630 (i.e., one or more analyzed activities of the RPA workflow violatethe access control and governance policy rules), generation of an RPArobot or publication of the RPA workflow is prevented until the RPAworkflow satisfies the access control and governance policy rules. Inthis embodiment, the RPA workflow analyzer/RPA designer application waitfor the user to make modifications to the RPA workflow at 1640. Theprocess then returns to step 1625 to analyze the modified activities ofthe RPA workflow. In some embodiments, only the activities that havebeen modified are analyzed again.

FIG. 17 is a flowchart illustrating a process 1700 for performing robotaccess control and governance for RPA for an executing RPA robot,according to an embodiment of the present invention. The process beginswith checking action(s) to be performed by an RPA robot and/orinformation requested by the RPA robot against access control andgovernance rules at 1710. The check may be performed by a client-side ora server-side validation application, for example. If the RPA robot ispermitted to take the action(s) and/or obtain the information at 1720,the requested information is provided to the RPA robot and/or theaction(s) are authorized at 1730. The validation application then waitsuntil a next RPA robot communication is received at 1740.

If the RPA robot is not permitted to take the action(s) and/or obtainthe information at 1720, the validation application prevents the RPArobot from obtaining the information and/or taking the action(s) at1750. In some embodiments, a notification may be sent to the RPA robotthat access to the information and/or the action(s) are not permitted at1760. In certain embodiments, the validation application mayautomatically end execution of the RPA robot (e.g., by terminating aprocess associated with the RPA robot) at 1770. The

In some embodiments, the action that is not permitted may be an actionpermitted for a human user but not an RPA robot. In certain embodiments,the validation application may verify that the RPA robot pauses longenough for one or more legacy systems and may delay obtaining theinformation requested by the RPA robot or accepting new informationrequests from the RPA robot until the delay period expires.

The process steps performed in FIGS. 16 and 17 may be performed by acomputer program, encoding instructions for the processor(s) to performat least part of the process(es) described in FIGS. 16 and 17 , inaccordance with embodiments of the present invention. The computerprogram may be embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable medium.The computer-readable medium may be, but is not limited to, a hard diskdrive, a flash device, RAM, a tape, and/or any other such medium orcombination of media used to store data. The computer program mayinclude encoded instructions for controlling processor(s) of a computingsystem (e.g., processor(s) 510 of computing system 500 of FIG. 5 ) toimplement all or part of the process steps described in FIGS. 16 and 17, which may also be stored on the computer-readable medium.

The computer program can be implemented in hardware, software, or ahybrid implementation. The computer program can be composed of modulesthat are in operative communication with one another, and which aredesigned to pass information or instructions to display. The computerprogram can be configured to operate on a general purpose computer, anASIC, or any other suitable device.

It will be readily understood that the components of various embodimentsof the present invention, as generally described and illustrated in thefigures herein, may be arranged and designed in a wide variety ofdifferent configurations. Thus, the detailed description of theembodiments of the present invention, as represented in the attachedfigures, is not intended to limit the scope of the invention as claimed,but is merely representative of selected embodiments of the invention.

The features, structures, or characteristics of the invention describedthroughout this specification may be combined in any suitable manner inone or more embodiments. For example, reference throughout thisspecification to “certain embodiments,” “some embodiments,” or similarlanguage means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristicdescribed in connection with the embodiment is included in at least oneembodiment of the present invention. Thus, appearances of the phrases“in certain embodiments,” “in some embodiment,” “in other embodiments,”or similar language throughout this specification do not necessarily allrefer to the same group of embodiments and the described features,structures, or characteristics may be combined in any suitable manner inone or more embodiments.

It should be noted that reference throughout this specification tofeatures, advantages, or similar language does not imply that all of thefeatures and advantages that may be realized with the present inventionshould be or are in any single embodiment of the invention. Rather,language referring to the features and advantages is understood to meanthat a specific feature, advantage, or characteristic described inconnection with an embodiment is included in at least one embodiment ofthe present invention. Thus, discussion of the features and advantages,and similar language, throughout this specification may, but do notnecessarily, refer to the same embodiment.

Furthermore, the described features, advantages, and characteristics ofthe invention may be combined in any suitable manner in one or moreembodiments. One skilled in the relevant art will recognize that theinvention can be practiced without one or more of the specific featuresor advantages of a particular embodiment. In other instances, additionalfeatures and advantages may be recognized in certain embodiments thatmay not be present in all embodiments of the invention.

One having ordinary skill in the art will readily understand that theinvention as discussed above may be practiced with steps in a differentorder, and/or with hardware elements in configurations which aredifferent than those which are disclosed. Therefore, although theinvention has been described based upon these preferred embodiments, itwould be apparent to those of skill in the art that certainmodifications, variations, and alternative constructions would beapparent, while remaining within the spirit and scope of the invention.In order to determine the metes and bounds of the invention, therefore,reference should be made to the appended claims.

1. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing a computerprogram for performing robot access control and governance for roboticprocess automation (RPA), the computer program configured to cause atleast one processor to: analyze activities of an RPA workflow of the RPAdesigner application against the access control and governance policyrules by running a series of rules that inspect the activities of theRPA workflow, the RPA workflow comprising an execution order and arelationship between the activities; responsive to one or more analyzedactivities of the RPA workflow violating the access control andgovernance policy rules, prevent generation of an RPA robot orpublication of the RPA workflow until the RPA workflow satisfies theaccess control and governance policy rules; and responsive to theanalyzed activities of the RPA workflow complying with all requiredaccess control and governance policy rules, generate an RPA robotimplementing the RPA workflow or publish the RPA workflow, wherein theaccess control and governance policy rules cannot be modified by a userof the RPA designer application.
 2. The one or more non-transitorycomputer-readable media of claim 1, wherein responsive to the one ormore analyzed activities of the RPA workflow violating the accesscontrol and governance policy rules, the computer program is configuredto cause the at least one processor to: generate a notificationcorresponding to a severity specified in a governance policy.
 3. The oneor more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein aninstallation script for the RPA designer application installs the accesscontrol and governance policy rules on a computing system.
 4. The one ormore non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein theaccess control and governance policy rules comprise application and/oruniversal resource locator (URL) restrictions, package restrictions,activity restrictions, and activity property requirements.
 5. The one ormore non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein theanalysis of the activities of the RPA workflow comprises verifyingwhether one or more libraries to be accessed in an RPA workflow activityare included in a whitelist or not included in a blacklist.
 6. The oneor more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein thecomputer program instructions are further configured to cause the atleast one processor to: download the access control and governancepolicy rules from a conductor application.
 7. The one or morenon-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the accesscontrol and governance policy rules comprise controls on whichapplications and/or universal resource locators (URLs) are automated,controls on what activities are used in the RPA workflow, controls onwhat packages are used for the RPA workflow, or a combination thereof.8. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1,wherein the access control and governance policy rules are defined forthe RPA designer application based on an organization, a role, a group,an individual developer, or a combination thereof.
 9. The one or morenon-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the computerprogram is further configured to cause the at least one processor to:display a package management interface comprising packages that may beaccessed by the activities of the RPA workflow; and prevent a user ofthe RPA designer application from modifying the permitted packages oradding new packages that are not permitted based on the access controland governance policy rules.
 10. The one or more non-transitorycomputer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the computer program isfurther configured to cause the at least one processor to: display acode analyzer settings interface that lists the access control andgovernance policy rules.
 11. The one or more non-transitorycomputer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the access control andgovernance policy rules comprise one or more application and/oruniversal resource locator (URL) restrictions, one or more packagerestrictions, one or more activity restrictions, one or more activityproperty requirements, or a combination thereof.
 12. Acomputer-implemented method for performing robot access control andgovernance for robotic process automation (RPA), comprising: analyzingactivities of an RPA workflow of an RPA designer application againstaccess control and governance policy rules by running a series of rulesthat inspect the activities of the RPA workflow, by a code analyzer of acomputing system, the RPA workflow comprising an execution order and arelationship between the activities; and responsive to one or moreanalyzed activities of the RPA workflow violating the access control andgovernance policy rules, preventing generation of an RPA robot orpublication of the RPA workflow until the RPA workflow satisfies theaccess control and governance policy rules, by the code analyzer of thecomputing system, wherein the code analyzer is computer code thatautomatically runs the access control and governance policy rules as aseries of rules that inspect the code written by an RPA user, whereinthe access control and governance policy rules cannot be modified by auser of the RPA designer application.
 13. The computer-implementedmethod of claim 12, further comprising: responsive to the analyzedactivities of the RPA workflow complying with all required accesscontrol and governance policy rules, generating an RPA robotimplementing the RPA workflow or publishing the RPA workflow, by the RPAdesigner application.
 14. The computer-implemented method of claim 12,wherein responsive to the one or more analyzed activities of the RPAworkflow violating the access control and governance policy rules, themethod further comprises: generating a notification corresponding to aseverity specified in a governance policy, by the code analyzer of thecomputing system.
 15. The computer-implemented method of claim 12,wherein the access control and governance policy rules compriseapplication and/or universal resource locator (URL) restrictions,package restrictions, activity restrictions, and activity propertyrequirements.
 16. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, whereinthe access control and governance policy rules comprise controls onwhich applications and/or universal resource locators (URLs) areautomated, controls on what activities are used in the RPA workflow,controls on what packages are used for the RPA workflow, or acombination thereof.
 17. The computer-implemented method of claim 12,further comprising: displaying a package management interface comprisingpackages that may be accessed by the activities of the RPA workflow, bythe RPA designer application; and preventing a user of the RPA designerapplication from modifying the permitted packages or adding new packagesthat are not permitted based on the access control and governance policyrules, by the RPA designer application.
 18. The computer-implementedmethod of claim 12, further comprising: displaying a code analyzersettings interface that lists the access control and governance policyrules, by the designer application.
 19. The computer-implemented methodof claim 12, wherein the access control and governance policy rulescomprise one or more application and/or universal resource locator (URL)restrictions, one or more package restrictions, one or more activityrestrictions, one or more activity property requirements, or acombination thereof.
 20. One or more computing systems, comprising:memory storing computer program instructions for performing robot accesscontrol and governance for robotic process automation (RPA); and atleast one processor configured to execute the computer programinstructions, wherein the computer program instructions are configuredto cause the at least one processor to: analyze activities of an RPAworkflow of an RPA designer application against access control andgovernance policy rules by running a series of rules that inspect theactivities of the RPA workflow, the RPA workflow comprising an executionorder and a relationship between the activities; responsive to one ormore analyzed activities of the RPA workflow violating the accesscontrol and governance policy rules, prevent generation of an RPA robotor publication of the RPA workflow until the RPA workflow satisfies theaccess control and governance policy rules; and responsive to theanalyzed activities of the RPA workflow complying with all requiredaccess control and governance policy rules, generate an RPA robotimplementing the RPA workflow or publish the RPA workflow, wherein theaccess control and governance policy rules comprise one or moreapplication and/or universal resource locator (URL) restrictions, one ormore package restrictions, one or more activity restrictions, one ormore activity property requirements, or a combination thereof, theaccess control and governance policy rules are defined for the RPAdesigner application based on an organization, a role, a group, anindividual developer, or a combination thereof, and the access controland governance policy rules cannot be modified by a user of the RPAdesigner application.
 21. The one or more computing systems of claim 20,wherein responsive to the one or more analyzed activities of the RPAworkflow violating the access control and governance policy rules, thecomputer program instructions are configured to cause the at least oneprocessor to: generate a notification corresponding to a severityspecified in a governance policy.
 22. The one or more computing systemsof claim 20, wherein the analysis of the activities of the RPA workflowcomprises verifying whether one or more libraries to be accessed in anRPA workflow activity are included in a whitelist or not included in ablacklist.
 23. The one or more computing systems of claim 20, whereinthe computer program instructions are further configured to cause the atleast one processor to: display a package management interfacecomprising packages that may be accessed by the activities of the RPAworkflow; and prevent a user of the RPA designer application frommodifying the permitted packages or adding new packages that are notpermitted based on the access control and governance policy rules. 24.The one or more computing systems of claim 20, wherein the computerprogram instructions are further configured to cause the at least oneprocessor to: display a code analyzer settings interface that lists theaccess control and governance policy rules.